domingo, 4 de junio de 2017

A NEW G-6 GROUP ?

Paris Disagreement: Donald Trump's Triumph of Stupidity

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and
other G-7 leaders did all they could to convince Trump to remain part of
the Paris Agreement. But he didn't listen. Instead, he evoked
deep-seated nationalism and plunged the West into a conflict deeper than
any since World War II.

By SPIEGEL Staff

Until the very end, they tried behind closed doors to get him to change his mind. For
the umpteenth time, they presented all the arguments -- the
humanitarian ones, the geopolitical ones and, of course, the economic
ones. They listed the advantages for the economy and for American
companies. They explained how limited the hardships would be.

German
Chancellor Angela Merkel was the last one to speak, according to the
secret minutes taken last Friday afternoon in the luxurious conference
hotel in the Sicilian town of Taormina -- meeting notes that DER SPIEGEL
has been given access to. Leaders of the world's seven most powerful
economies were gathered around the table and the issues under discussion
were the global economy and sustainable development.

The
newly elected French president, Emmanuel Macron, went first. It makes
sense that the Frenchman would defend the international treaty that
bears the name of France's capital: The Paris Agreement. "Climate change
is real and it affects the poorest countries," Macron said.Then,
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reminded the U.S. president how
successful the fight against the ozone hole had been and how it had been
possible to convince industry leaders to reduce emissions of the
harmful gas.

Finally,
it was Merkel's turn. Renewable energies, said the chancellor, present
significant economic opportunities. "If the world's largest economic
power were to pull out, the field would be left to the Chinese," she
warned. Xi Jinping is clever, she added, and would take advantage of the
vacuum it created. Even the Saudis were preparing for the post-oil era,
she continued, and saving energy is also a worthwhile goal for the
economy for many other reasons, not just because of climate change.

But
Donald Trump remained unconvinced. No matter how trenchant the argument
presented by the increasingly frustrated group of world leaders, none
of them had an effect. "For me," the U.S. president said, "it's easier
to stay in than step out." But environmental constraints were costing
the American economy jobs, he said. And that was the only thing that
mattered. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

At
that point, it was clear to the rest of those seated around the table
that they had lost him. Resigned, Macron admitted defeat. "Now China
leads," he said.

Still,
it is likely that none of the G-7 heads of state and government
expected the primitive brutality Trump would stoop to when announcing his withdrawal from
the international community. Surrounded by sycophants in the Rose
Garden at the White House, he didn't just proclaim his withdrawal from
the climate agreement, he sowed the seeds of international conflict. His
speech was a break from centuries of Enlightenment and rationality. The
president presented his political statement as a nationalist manifesto
of the most imbecilic variety. It couldn't have been any worse.

A Catastrophe for the Climate

His
speech was packed with make-believe numbers from controversial or
disproven studies. It was hypocritical and dishonest. In Trump's mind,
the climate agreement is an instrument allowing other countries to
enrich themselves at the expense of the United States. "I was elected to
represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris," he said. Trump left
no doubt that the well-being of the American economy is the only value
he understands. It's no wonder that the other countries applauded when
Washington signed the Paris Agreement, he said. "We don't want other
leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won't be.
They won't be."

Trump's
withdrawal is a catastrophe for the climate. The U.S. is the
second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases -- behind China -- and is now
no longer part of global efforts to put a stop to climate change. It's America against the rest of the world, along with Syria and Nicaragua, the only other countries that haven't signed the Paris deal.

But
the effects on the geopolitical climate are likely to be just as
catastrophic. Trump's speech provided only the most recent proof that
discord between the U.S. and Europe is deeper now than at any time since
the end of World War II.

Now, the Western community of values is standing in opposition to Donald Trump. The G-7 has become the G-6. The West is divided.

For
three-quarters of a century, the U.S. led and protected Europe. Despite
all the mistakes and shortcomings exhibited by U.S. foreign policy,
from Vietnam to Iraq, America's claim to leadership of the free world
was never seriously questioned.

That is now no longer the case. The U.S. is led by a president who feels more comfortable taking part in a Saudi Arabian sword dance than he does among his NATO allies. And the estrangement has accelerated in recent days. First came his blustering at the NATO summit in Brussels,
then the disagreement over the climate deal in Sicily followed by
Merkel's speech in Bavaria, in which she called into question America's reliability as a partner for
Europe. A short time later, Trump took to Twitter to declare a trade
war -- and now, he has withdrawn the United States from international
efforts to combat climate change.

A Downward Pointing Learning Curve

Many
had thought that Trump could be controlled once he entered the White
House, that the office of the presidency would bring him to reason.
Berlin had placed its hopes in the moderating influence of his advisers
and that there would be a sharp learning curve. Now that Trump has
actually lived up to his threat to leave the climate deal, it is clear
that if such a learning curve exists, it points downward.

The
chancellor was long reluctant to make the rift visible. For Merkel, who
grew up in communist East Germany, the alliance with the U.S. was
always more than political calculation, it reflected her deepest
political convictions. Now, she has -- to a certain extent, at least --
terminated the trans-Atlantic friendship with Trump's America.

In
doing so, the German chancellor has become Trump's adversary on the
international stage. And Merkel has accepted the challenge when it comes
to trade policy and the quarrel over NATO finances. Now, she has done
so as well on an issue that is near and dear to her heart: combating
climate change.

Merkel's
aim is that of creating an alliance against Trump. If she can't
convince the U.S. president, her approach will be that of trying to
isolate him. In Taormina, it was six countries against one. Should Trump
not reverse course, she is hoping that the G-20 in Hamburg in July will
end 19:1. Whether she will be successful is unclear.

Trump
has identified Germany as his primary adversary. Since his inauguration
in January, he has criticized no country -- with the exception of North
Korea and Iran -- as vehemently as he has Germany. The country is "bad, very bad,"
he said in Brussels last week. Behind closed doors at the NATO summit,
Trump went after Germany, saying there were large and prosperous
countries that were not living up to their alliance obligations.

And
he wants to break Germany's economic power. The trade deficit with
Germany, he recently tweeted, is "very bad for U.S. This will change."

An Extreme Test

Merkel's
verdict following Trump's visit to Europe could hardly be worse. There
has never been an open break with America since the end of World War II;
the alienation between Germany and the U.S. has never been so large as
it is today. When Merkel's predecessor, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder,
refused to provide German backing for George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq,
his rebuff was limited to just one single issue. It was an extreme test
of the trans-Atlantic relationship, to be sure, but in contrast to
today, it was not a quarrel that called into question commonly held
values like free trade, minority rights, press freedoms, the rule of law
-- and climate policies.

To
truly understand the consequences of Trump's decision, it is important
to remember what climate change means for humanity -- what is hidden
behind the temperature curves and emission-reduction targets.

Climate
change means that millions are threatened with starvation because rain
has stopped falling in some regions of the planet. It means that sea
levels are rising and islands and coastal zones are flooding. It means
the melting of the ice caps, more powerful storms, heatwaves, water
shortages and deadly epidemics. All of that leads to conflicts over
increasingly limited resources, to flight and to migration.

In
the U.S., too, there were plenty of voices warning the president of the
consequences of his decision, Trump's daughter Ivanka and her husband
Jared Kushner among them. Others included cabinet members like Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, along with
pretty much the country's entire business elite.Companies
from Exxon and Shell to Google, Apple and Amazon to Wal-Mart and
PepsiCo all appealed to Trump to not isolate the U.S. on climate policy.
They are worried about international competitive disadvantages in a
world heading toward green energy, whether the U.S. is along for the
ride or not. Google, Microsoft and Apple have long since begun drawing
their energy from renewable sources, with the ultimate goal of complete
freedom from fossil fuels. Wind and solar farms are booming in the U.S.
-- and hardly an investor can be found anymore for coal mining.

A
long list of U.S. states, led by California, have charted courses that
are in direct opposition to Trump's climate policy. According to a
survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, almost
three-quarters of Americans are opposed to withdrawing from the Paris
Agreement.

The Absurdity of Trump's Histrionics

On
the other side are right-wing nationalists such as Trump's chief
strategist Stephen Bannon, who deny climate change primarily because
fighting it requires international cooperation. Powerful Republicans
have criticized the climate deal with the most specious of all
arguments. The U.S., they say, would be faced with legal consequences
were it to miss or lower its climate targets.

Yet
international agreement on the Paris accord was only possible because
it contains no punitive tools at all. The only thing signatories must do
is report every five years how much progress they have made toward
achieving their self-identified climate protection measures.
In late March, for example, he signed an executive order to unwind part
of Barack Obama's legacy, the Clean Power Plan. Among other measures,
the plan called for the closure of aging coal-fired power plants, the
reduction of methane emissions produced by oil and natural gas drilling,
and stricter rules governing fuel efficiency in new vehicles. Without
these measures, Obama's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by up
to 28 percent by 2025, in comparison to 2005, will hardly be achievable.
But Trump is also planning to head in the opposite direction. To make
the U.S. less dependent on energy imports, he wants to return to coal,
one of the dirtiest energy sources in existence -- even though energy
independence was largely achieved years ago thanks to cheap, less
environmentally damaging natural gas.Therein lies the absurdity of
Trump's histrionics. Nothing would have been easier for the U.S. than to
take part pro forma in United Nations climate-related negotiations
while completely ignoring climate protection measures at home -- which
Trump has been doing anyway since his election.

German
and European efforts will now focus on keeping the other agreement
signatories on board, which Berlin has already been working on for
several weeks now. Because of the now-visible effects of climate change
and the falling prices for renewable energies, German officials believe
that the path laid forward by Paris is irreversible.Berlin
officials say that EU member states are eager to move away from fossil
fuels, as are China and India. Even emissaries from Russia and Saudi
Arabia, countries whose governments aren't generally considered to be
enthusiastic promoters of renewable energy sources, have indicated to
the Germans that "Paris will be complied with." On Thursday in Berlin,
Merkel and Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang demonstratively reaffirmed
their support for the Paris Agreement. Keqiang even spoke of "green
growth."

China
and India are likely to not just meet, but exceed their climate
targets. China has been reducing its coal consumption for the last three
years and plans for over 100 new coal-fired power plants have been
scrapped. India, too, is abstaining from the construction of new
coal-fired plants and will likely meet its goal of generating 40 percent
of its electricity from non-fossil fuels by 2022, eight years earlier
than planned. Both countries invest in solar and wind energy and in
both, electricity from renewable sources is often cheaper than coal
power.

Isolating the American President

The
problem is that all of that still won't be enough to limit global
warming to significantly below 2 degrees Celsius, as called for in the
Paris deal. Much more commitment, much more decisiveness is necessary,
particularly in countries that can afford it. German, for example, is
almost certain to fall short of its target of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020 relative to 1990.

In
Taormina, Chancellor Merkel did all she could to isolate the American
president. In the summit's closing declaration, she wanted to
specifically mention the conflict between the U.S. and its allies over
the climate pact. Normally, such documents tend to remain silent on such
differences.

At
the G-20 meeting in Hamburg, Merkel plans to stay the course. She hopes
that all other countries at the meeting will stand up to the United
States. Even if Saudi Arabia ends up supporting its ally Trump, the end
result would still be 18:2, which doesn't look much better from the
perspective of Washington.

Merkel,
in any case, is doing all she can to ramp up the pressure on Trump.
"The times in which we could completely rely on others are over to a
certain extent," she said in her beer tent speech last Sunday.

It
shouldn't be underestimated just how bitter it must have been for her
to utter this sentence, and how deep her disappointment. Merkel, who
grew up in the Soviet sphere of influence, never had much understanding
for the anti-Americanism often found in western Germany. U.S.
dependability is partly to thank for Eastern Europe's post-1989 freedom.

Merkel
has shown a surprising amount of passion for the trans-Atlantic
relationship over the years. She came perilously close to openly
supporting the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and enjoyed a personal
friendship with George W. Bush, despite the fact that most Germans had
little sympathy for the U.S. president. Later, Merkel's response to the
NSA's surveillance of her mobile phone was largely stoic and she also
didn't react when Trump called her refugee policies "insane."As
such, Merkel's comments last Sunday about her loss of trust in America
were eye-opening. It was a completely new tone and Merkel knew that it
would generate attention. Indeed, that's what she wanted.

A Clear Message to the U.S.

Her sentence immediately circled the globe and was seen among Trump opponents as proof that the most powerful woman in Europe had lost hope that Trump could be brought to reason.

Prior
to speeches to her party, such as the one held last Sunday, she always
gets a manuscript from Christian Democratic Union (CDU) headquarters in
Berlin, but she herself writes the most decisive passages. The comment
about Europe's allies was a clear message to the U.S., but it was also
meant for a domestic audience. Her speech marked the launch of her
re-election campaign.

Merkel
knows that her campaign adversaries from the center-left Social
Democrats (SPD) intend to make foreign policy an issue in the election.
After all, it has a long history of doing so. Willy Brandt did so well
in 1969 and 1972 in part because he called into question the Cold War
course that had been charted to that point. Gerhard Schröder managed to
win in 2002 in part because of his vociferous rejection of German
involvement in the coming Iraq War.Last
Monday, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, a senior SPD member,
took advantage of a roundtable discussion on migration in the Foreign
Ministry to lay into Trump. The largest challenges we currently face,
such as climate change, he said, have been made "even larger by the new
U.S. isolationism." Those who don't resist such a political course,
Gabriel continued, "make themselves complicit." It was a clear shot at
the chancellor.

But
her speech last Sunday shielded Merkel from possible accusations of
abetting Trump, though she nevertheless wants to keep the dialogue going
with Washington. Speaking to conservative lawmakers in Berlin on
Tuesday, she said that the trans-Atlantic relationship continues to be
of "exceptional importance." Nevertheless, she added, differences should
not be swept under the rug.

Merkel
realized early on just how difficult it would be to work with the new
U.S. president, partly because she watched videos of some of his
pre-inauguration appearances. Speaking to CDU leaders in December, she
said that Trump was extremely serious about his slogan "America First."

The
chancellor's image of Trump has shifted since then, but not for the
better. The first contacts with the new government in Washington were
sobering. When Christoph Heusgen, her foreign policy adviser, met for
the first time with Michael Flynn, who was soon to become Trump's
short-lived national security adviser, he was shocked by his American
counterpart's lack of knowledge.

Shattered Hopes

But
there were still grounds for optimism. Early on, Merkel thought that
the new U.S. government's naiveite might mean that Trump could be
influenced. She was hoping to play the role of educator, an approach
that initially looked like it might be successful. In a telephone
conversation in January, Merkel explained to Trump the situation in
Ukraine. She had the impression that he had never before seriously
considered the issue and she was able to convince him not to lift the
sanctions that had been placed on Russia.

The
new president has likewise thus far refrained from moving the U.S.
Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He has also left the Iran
deal alone and revised initial statements in which he had said that NATO
was "obsolete." In the Chancellery, there was hope that Trump could in
fact become something like a second-coming of Ronald Reagan.

Those hopes have now been shattered. Because Trump has had difficulty fulfilling many of his campaign promises,
he has become even more intransigent. Merkel watched in annoyance as
Trump did all he could in Saudi Arabia to avoid upsetting his hosts only
to come to the NATO summit and cast public aspersions at his allies.
The bad thing about Trump is not that he criticizes partners, says a
confidante of Angela Merkel's, but that in contrast to his predecessors,
he calls the entire international order into question.

At
one point, Merkel took Trump aside in Sicily to speak with him
privately about climate protection and the president told her that he
would prefer to delay his decision on the Paris Agreement until after
the G-20 in July.

You can postpone everything, Merkel replied, but it's
not helpful. She urged that he make a decision prior to the Hamburg
summit.

He has now done so.

To
the degree that one can make such a claim, Trump has a rather
functional view of Merkel. He wants her to increase defense spending and
to reduce Germany's trade surplus with the U.S., even if it is a
political impossibility. And he wants Merkel to force other European
leaders to do the same, even though Merkel doesn't possess the power to
do so.

In
Trump's world, there are no allies and no mature relationships, just
self-interested countries with short-term interests. History means
nothing to Trump; as a hard-nosed real-estate magnate, he is only
interested in immediate gains. He cares little for long-term
relationships.

Two close advisers to the president contributed a piece to the Wall Street Journal this
week that can be seen as something like a "Trump Doctrine." "The world
is not a 'global community,'" wrote Gary Cohn and Herbert Raymond
McMaster, Trump's economic and security advisers. The subtext is clear:
The global order, which the United States helped build, belongs to the
past. There are no alliances anymore, just individual interests -- no
allies, just competitors. It was a clear signal to America's erstwhile
Western allies that they can no longer rely on the United States as a
partner.

Putin's Dream Come True

It's
not surprising that Moscow is gleefully scoffing at the losers in
Europe. Mariya Sakharova, the Foreign Ministry's brash spokeswoman,
gloated openly Tuesday on Vladimir Solovyov's popular Russian talk show.

If
Europe is going to have to take its fate into its own hands, as Merkel
says, that just shows how different things used to be when the Continent
simply followed the marching orders given by Washington, she said. "We
always thought that the Europeans had united in the European Union --
but they were really just standing at attention," she sneered to the
approving giggles of her host.

The
open government gloating is indicative of the mood currently prevailing
in the Russian capital. For Vladimir Putin, a dream appears to have
come true in recent days; Trump could prove to be a godsend. For some
time, Moscow has been trying to drive a wedge between the trans-Atlantic
alliance. But now it looks as though the American president is doing
that job for him.

In
the past, the Americans guaranteed Europe's security with their nuclear
and conventional capabilities. Russia would stand to profit the most
from a loosening or possible breakup of the trans-Atlantic relationship.
If that were to happen, Putin will have been successful in his strategy
of undermining the cohesion of liberal Western democracies.

The
fact that the process of disintegration would go so fast has surprised
even the Russians. "The trans-Atlantic frictions had been obvious for
months. But I didn't expect Merkel to say that Europe needs to free
itself from its dependency on the United States," says Konstantin
Kosachev, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federal
Council, the upper chamber of Russia's parliament.

In
Brussels, Berlin and many other European capitals, pro-European forces
are hoping that Moscow is premature with its celebratory mood. They
believe the Trump factor could have the reverse effect and actually
serve as a magnet to pull the quarreling Europeans back together."We've
had enough," says Manfred Weber, the influential German politician who
leads the conservative party caucus in the European Parliament. "Despite
goodwill, we are at a turning point. We have to seize our own
opportunity and show that we are just as prepared to act with our trade
policies as we are with defense."

Indeed,
the Trump factor appears to be having an aphrodisiac effect on European
defense cooperation efforts. What had seemed nearly impossible only a
short time ago has now become plausible. France and Germany have long
been pushing for closer military cooperation in Europe. The French are
interested in doing so to assert their own claim to leadership on the
Continent, alongside the Americans. And the Germans are interested in
diverting attention from the fact that they have spent years spending
too little on their armed forces.

In
the past, it had always been the British and the Eastern Europeans who
stood in the way of the joint efforts promoted by Germany and France --
for the most part out of fear that an internal European competitor to
NATO could result. But Britain's decision to leave the EU also means
that it will no longer be able to block such efforts. The Eastern
Europeans, meanwhile, who see themselves as being on the front against
Russia, have lost faith in Trump's pledges to the alliance.

The
government in Berlin isn't the only one taking note of the Estonians'
eagerness for progress on defense cooperation once it assumes the
rotating six-month presidency of the European Council in July. The
country had previously been largely opposed to deeper European defense
cooperation.

No
one believes that Europe can ensure its future security on its own.
Washington's military role is too dominant for that. The U.S. spends two
and a half times more on defense each year than all the European NATO
member states combined. That's why the unthinkable has always been
ignored: That Trump could actually withdraw from NATO. But the climate
issue has demonstrated that the unthinkable is not something that Trump
shies away from.

Europe's Military Push

The
more unpredictable this major ally becomes, the more the Europeans will
have to rely on their own military capabilities. A few weeks ago, they
agreed in Brussels to create a joint command center that would be
responsible in the future for European training missions in Africa and
the naval operation Sophia against human-traffickers in the
Mediterranean Sea. After lengthy hesitation, even Britain relented and
agreed in the end.

Further
projects may follow, including a European medical command, joint
officer training and a European logistics hub. The French and the
Germans also want to create a joint air transport unit. The Dutch have
offered to take leadership of a multinational alliance providing
air-to-air refueling and transport aircraft.

On
Wednesday, the European Commission plans to present a paper playing out
a number of scenarios of what stronger military cooperation in the
European Union might look like in 2025, if the EU member states move to
more closely coordinate their military activities. Under the scenarios,
EU member states would more closely coordinate their military planning
and they would also conduct joint exercises on a regular basis.

Even
though there is an urgent need for it, the most difficult area of
cooperation seems to be that of joint arms procurement. "There are 178
different weapon systems in the EU, compared to 30 in the U.S.," says
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The result is that
Europeans achieve only 15 percent of the efficiency enjoyed by the
Americans with their defense spending.The
Germans and the French, especially, would like to cooperate more
closely in this area and develop drones, tanks and combat helicopters
together. But previous experience has been sobering. The negotiations
are taking an eternity and no agreement is in sight.

The
EU is not setting out to challenge the U.S. on security policy -- it
merely wants to become less dependent on the Americans, which is
something Washington might support as well.

Trade,
on the other hand, could be the subject of major conflicts. German
Economics Minister Brigitte Zypries and her senior deputy Matthias
Machnig experienced firsthand during a trip to the American capital last
week, just how big the chasm is on trade issues. Both politicians,
members of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), were shocked
after their talks with Republican members of Congress and the
president's trade advisers.

"Some
of the Americans we met with have a serious misjudgment about the
economy," Machnig reports. "They believe that the high trade deficit the
U.S. has with other countries is largely the product of bad trade
deals." They claim that they are constantly getting defeated in the
World Trade Organization's (WTO) courts. "But the Americans use the WTO
system just like every other country to address trade disputes. And they
are often successful." With Trump, he says, the U.S. is already well on
its way to self-isolation.

An Opportunity for Europe?

What
Trump might call a disaster, could actually present a major opportunity
for Europe. The EU could offer an alternative to trading partners
feeling snubbed by the Americans. That's one reason that negotiations
have been accelerated for free trade agreements between the EU and Japan
and the Mercosur countries of South America. EU Trade Commissioner
Cecilia Malmström herself even personally attacked Trump during her
recent visit to Mexico. "Now is the time to build bridges, not walls,"
she said.

In
addition to trade, the EU also wants to fill the vacuum being left
behind by the United States on climate protection. "It is Europe's duty
to say: That's not how it works," EU Commission President Juncker said
on Wednesday in Berlin. "The Americans can't just leave the climate
protection agreement. Mr. Trump believes that because he doesn't get
close enough to the dossiers to fully understand them."

Juncker
says it will take three to four years for the United States to withdraw
from the agreement. "We tried to explain that to Mr. Trump in Taormina
in clear German sentences. It seems our attempt failed, but the law is
the law and it must be obeyed." He also said that "not everything which
is law and not everything in international agreements is fake news."

In
addition to defense, trade and climate protection, there's a fourth
area where the Trump factor could generate some movement. Emancipation
from America can only succeed if a way can be found to prevent the
common currency from once again becoming the plaything of international
financial investors. The introduction of the euro was intended as the
crown achievement of the European peace project, but it instead led to
massive discord on the Continent during the crisis.

In
response, there are numerous proposals on the table for eliminating the
design flaws in the currency union. At the core is the question of
balancing out the interests of the Northern and Southern European
countries. Members in Northern Europe are pushing for fiscal discipline
and business innovation, whereas Southern Europe wants to be able to use
government borrowing to spur growth if need be.

On
Wednesday, the European Commission presented a reflection paper on the
future of the euro. Suddenly, many proposals no longer sounded as
unrealistic as they did only a few months ago: that of the creation of a
post for an EU finance minister and Eurogroup head and a eurozone
treasury.

Macron's Momentum

Much
of the recent momentum is attributable to one man: new French President
Macron. If he makes good on his pledges and forges ahead with economic
reforms in his country, it would make it increasingly difficult for
Germany to balk at France's ideas for the eurozone. Merkel has long
hinted as much by saying she would be prepared to make the necessary
changes to the European treaties. "We can give the whole situation a new
dynamic," Merkel said during Macron's recent visit to Berlin.

Whether
Europe can succeed in breaking free from the United States will
ultimately hinge on Merkel and Macron working together. If Merkel wins
the election in September, she will have, together with the new French
president, the unique opportunity to give Europe the international
credibility that it now lacks, says American historian Anne Applebaum.
She says Europe should now develop its own foreign policy, its own
security and possibly even its own army. "Shouldn't a European navy
blockade the Libyan coast? Shouldn't Europeans be thinking about ending
the war in Syria? Shouldn't Europe have a joint strategy to push back
against Russian disinformation? All of these things are possible, but
only if Europe's political leaders start working on them now."

The
idea that the Europeans could no longer primarily rely "on others,"
that they have to become more active on their own, was Macron's position
even before his election. He wants to create greater capacity for the
EU to act, and he wants to adapt its institutions to the new challenges.
That's one reason he appointed Sylvie Goulard, a longtime member of the
European Parliament who speaks perfect German, as his defense minister.

"Whether
we loudly proclaim our concerns as Europeans or not, the main thing is
making it more capable of acting," says one French diplomat. The French
share Merkel's view that Trump's Washington is no longer a reliable
partner. Macron's statement before the G-7 that he sees Trump as a
"partner" was nothing more than lip service. And French diplomats were
appalled by how poorly prepared the Americans were in both Brussels and
at the G-7 summit in Taormina.

Still,
it's unlikely that Macron, who has so far proven himself to be quite
skillful with mind games, will seek an open conflict with Trump. A
trans-Atlantic clash isn't in his interests. Macron firmly believes in
his own persuasiveness, his charm and his seductiveness. At first, he
will try to do everything he can to steer Trump where he wants him to
go.

And
Angela Merkel may find all the things in Macron that she likely sought
in vain in his predecessor. Macron could become a reliable and strong
partner for Germany. Indeed, there has never before been a French
government with as many members possessing deep knowledge of Germany as
this one.

Can Merkel Forge Alliance Against Trump?

Will
the German chancellor succeed in forging alliances against Donald Trump
on the important disputes? It won't be easy. In terms of climate
protection, there is a chance. But it's much less likely on trade and
defense. When it comes to burden sharing within NATO, Trump isn't alone
in his views. And in terms of Germany's trade surplus, it isn't clear
who will face isolation.

Merkel
is now convinced that Europe must take its fate into its own hands. At
the same time, Germany also can't be totally certain who its allies are.
When Trump began attacking the Germans behind closed doors in Brussels,
it was Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, above all,
who sprung to the chancellor's defense. Participants say it was alarming
how many NATO members kissed the ground before Trump -- and not just
the usual suspects from Eastern Europe.

Merkel
has many fans. She is the star among liberals around the world. The
leftist American press had already begun declaring her the new leader of
the free world even before Trump's election. In an opinion piece this
week, Britain's Guardian heaped praise on
Merkel, noting that "her statesmanship, her ease, her ability to broker
deals and relationships is ever more impressive." But her glorification
in the press will do little to help in her test of strength with the
world's most powerful man.

And
what about China? The major Asian power is standing in the wings, ready
to take over the role of the world's leading nation, which America
appears to be abandoning.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos in
January, President Xi Jinping sought to present himself as the most
powerful advocate of global free trade. Now China also wants to become
the leading nation when it comes to climate protection. But officials in
Merkel's Chancellery aren't harboring many illusions when it comes to
the new partner.

At
moments when nothing else helps, Merkel these days, it is said, takes a
look at her appointment calendar -- more specifically at June 17. That
Saturday, Merkel plans to fly to Rome, where the pope is hosting a
private reception for Protestants. The chancellor wants to present Pope
Francis with the goals of her G-20 summit in Hamburg in July, on issues
like migration and women's rights, for example. It doesn't require much
imagination to believe that the two are on the same page when it comes
to Trump.

The
differences of opinion between the U.S. president and the head of the
Catholic Church are no secret. In contrast to Trump, Pope Francis has
called for the protection of God's creation and for the world to battle
climate change. "It is inconceivable that the pope did not discuss
climate change in his conversation with Trump," says one person close to
the Vatican who has intimate knowledge of Francis' thinking. But it
doesn't appear to have done anything to help.